The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0955-534X.htm
EBR
31,6
970
Received 21 July 2018
Revised 7 December 2018
21 February 2019
Accepted 2 April 2019
European Business Review
Vol. 31 No. 6, 2019
pp. 970-995
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0955-534X
DOI 10.1108/EBR-07-2018-0133
A systematic review of the
antecedents of knowledge transfer:
an actant-object view
Hamidreza Shahbaznezhad
University of Auckland Business School, Auckland, New Zealand
Mona Rashidirad
University of Sussex Business School, Brighton, UK, and
Isaac Vaghefi
Seidenberg School of Computer Science and Information Systems, Pace University,
New York, USA
Abstract
Purpose – While numerous studies have studied knowledge transfer (KT) and endeavored to address
factors influencing KT, little effort has been made to integrate the findings of prior studies. This paper aims to
classify the literature on KT through a detailed exploration of different perspectives of KT inter and intra
organizations.
Design/methodology/approach – Using actor–network theory (ANT) as the baseline, we conducted a
systematic review of KT research to summarize prior KT studies and classify the influential factors on KT.
The review covered 115 empirical articles published between 1987 and 2017.
Findings – Drawing on the review and ANT guidelines, the authors proposed a conceptual model to
categorize KT constitutes into objects including those related to (1) knowledge, (2) knowledge exchange and
(3) technology, as well as actants including those related to (4) organization, (5) team/business unit and
(6) knowledge sender/receiver.
Research limitations/implications – Adopting a holistic synthesized approach based on ANT, this
research puts forward a valid theoretical foundation on further understanding of KT and its antecedents.
Indeed, this paper investigates KT inter and intra organizations to recognize and locate the key antecedents of
KT, which is of substantial applicability in today’s knowledge-driven economy.
Practical implications – The findings advance managers and practitioners’ understanding of the
important role of actants and objects and their interplay in KT practices.
Originality/value – While most studies on KT have a narrow focus, this research contributes to holistic
understanding of motivational, behavioral, technological and organizational issues related to KT. It also offers
a thorough and context-free literature review on KT, which synthesizes the findings of prior studies on KT.
Keywords Knowledge transfer, Actor network theory (ANT), Objects, Actants, Antecedents,
Knowledge exchange, Systematic review
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Rapid proliferation in the business potential of knowledge transfer (KT) attracts researchers
from various fields to contribute to the growing body of research on this phenomenon.
Although several scholars (Argote and Ingram, 2000; Kang et al., 2010; Teo and
Bhattacherjee, 2014) endeavored to highlight the benefits of KT in organizations, still many
organizations cannot successfully yield the benefits of KT (Szulanski et al., 2016), in part due
to a lack of clear understanding of all aspects of KT and its complexities (i.e. the big picture). Antecedents of
In addition, it is argued that KT literature is highly fragmented and there is no consensus on knowledge
the conceptualization of KT and what determines its success in organizations (Argote and
Ingram, 2000).
transfer
There have been some efforts to conduct literature reviews on KT. Examples are the
review works done by Frank et al. (2016) and Battistella et al. (2016). Our review shows that
while the extant studies contribute to our understanding of KT, the majority have been
conducted with a particular focus on one or few specific antecedents of KT, and in a 971
particular context (Muthusamy and White, 2005; Kamas ak and Bulutlar, 2010; Park et al.,
2015). Thus, they do not portray a complete picture of KT antecedents. Understanding this
is key to accumulating theoretical knowledge and has important implications for
organizations in various contexts. Despite the fact that the pertinent literature on KT is
accumulating, the stream of research is still in the developmental stage, and arguably highly
inconsistent (Park et al., 2015).
In this paper, we seek to contribute to this area of research by providing a systematic
review of KT research. We first explain the theoretical foundations of KT to be used as a
baseline for our review. The review covers 115 articles published between 1987 and 2017.
Building on our review, we develop a conceptual framework that summarizes the progress
in KT research and provides future research directions. Rooted in Actor Network Theory
(ANT), we focus on KT objects and actants in the proposed research framework. Unlike
prior research that has a narrow scope and it is context dependent (Ahmad and Daghfous,
2010; Meier, 2011), our synthesized systemic analysis is context-free and can be applied
within and among organizations within any sector, with any organizational size, and at any
levels, i.e. individuals or teams.
With respect to the theoretical contribution, our proposed conceptual framework extends
the work of recent scholars and offers a comprehensive review of key antecedents of KT,
which informs our current knowledge and provides avenues for further research in this
domain. Moreover, our research extends ANT to the context of KT and attempts to provide
meaningful theoretical insights. This research also provides\implications for managers who
wish to successfully develop and implement KT practices in their organizations. In this
regard, this research draws managers’ attention to the paramount role of influential
constitutes involved in a successful KT, which enable them to make their KT practices more
value generating.

Theoretical background
Knowledge transfer
Several scholars (Argote and Ingram, 2000; Paulin and Suneson, 2012; Tangaraja et al., 2016)
attempted to define KT. While KT has been defined from various perspectives, a careful
investigation into the conceptualization of KT highlights that it refers to the process of
acquisition and utilization of new sets of knowledge-based resources. KT, as an important
knowledge management activity in organizations, yields numerous benefits to
organizations, e.g. cost efficiency (Goh, 2002), flexibility (Blome et al., 2014) and competitive
advantage (Kang et al., 2010). Some scholars use the terms KT and knowledge sharing (KS)
interchangeably, so they believe that these two concepts mean the same (Martín Cruz et al.,
2009). However, others (Paulin and Suneson, 2012) argue that KT and KS are not the same.
Indeed, KT, as a whole, is a broader concept which encompasses KS practices (Tangaraja
et al., 2016). While the distinction between these two concepts is blurred, we apply KT and
KS interchangeably in this research, not least because we intend to conduct a comprehensive
literature review.
EBR A review of existing literature on KT reveals that there are some scholars who attempted
31,6 to conduct a systematic literature review and make connections between different works
from various perspectives. For instance, Battistella et al. (2016) critically reviewed the
relevant literature on inter-organizational technology/knowledge transfer. They proposed a
model of technology/knowledge transfer and considered six categories related to the actors
involved, i.e. sources, recipients and intermediaries, the relationship between them, the
972 object of the transfer, the channels and mechanisms and the reference context. In another
study, Burmeister (2017) investigated Repatriate KT (RKT) in the literature published
between 2000 and 2015. As a result, she offered an integrated framework of the variables
that affect RKT success. She proposed that the prerequisites for repatriation strategy
implementation can be classified in three levels: individual, dyad and organization. In the
context of software development, Ghobadi (2015) reviewed the literature on KT between
1993 and 2011 and suggested a classification framework which identifies four main drivers
of KT: structure related drivers (team and organizational drivers), task related drivers,
people related drivers and technology related drivers.
In the aforementioned studies (Li et al., 2014), scholars chose various theoretical lens to
delineate the literature review on KT. The most cited and applied theories in KT are
reviewed in a study by Burmeister (2017) which are knowledge creation and organizational
learning, resource (or knowledge) based view, social capital theory/social resources theory,
communication theory, and social exchange theory. To the best of our knowledge, no
systematic study on KT has been conducted by using ANT, which builds the theoretical
grounding of this research. ANT enables us to better analyze the large body of literature on
KT through the perspective of actants and objects involved in KT practices.

Actor–network theory
Originally rooted in sociology of scientific knowledge, ANT explains the relation between
underlying dissimilar elements of a heterogeneous network of aligned interests, including
people, organizations and standards (Elder-Vass, 2015). It argues that all co-extensive
networks comprise of both inseparable social and technical parts (Whittle and Spicer, 2008).
Any actor, whether a person, an object (including technological tools or technical standards),
or an organization, is equally important to a social network (Latour, 1996). The theory has
been used by researchers to explore how networks are built, assembled and maintained to
achieve a specific objective (Latour, 1996). It is necessary to note that ANT does not explain
why a network exists; it focuses on the infrastructure of actor–networks, how they are
formed and how they may fall apart (Latour, 2005). Since its introduction, ANT has
undergone significant changes and evolutions in different fields, and used in various
contexts, from health care (Greenhalgh and Stones, 2010) to accounting (Justesen and
Mouritsen, 2011) and management and organizations (Alcadipani and Hassard, 2010).
Despite its popularity and potential contribution to understanding KT and its antecedents,
to our knowledge there is no current study that used ANT in the knowledge-related
contexts. Building on extant literature, we argue how this theory provides a robust
foundation to our research framework and enables us to carefully investigate KT and its
antecedents through an integrative analysis.
Drawing on ANT, we can identify, describe and justify the main network constitutes that
facilitate KT. By relying on the conceptualization of ANT by Law (2008), we propose that in
KT, actants (denote human and non-human actors) are included knowledge sender/receiver,
team and organization, whereas objects refer to technology, knowledge and knowledge
exchange (Figure 1). We argue that actants should operate in the context of organizational
norms, rules and strategies, team environment and expectations, available technology and
the richness of knowledge base. Indeed, interactions in any KT practice are determined by a Antecedents of
combination of different network constitutes which include actants and objects, such as knowledge
knowledge base or technology. The interplay between actants and objects leads to a
transfer
systematic knowledge creation and knowledge exchange which is demonstrated in Figure 1.
Following Couldry’s (2008) work on the application of ANT in exploring the role of
media and communication technologies in contemporary societies, we apply ANT in the
context of KT to explain the web of connections between actants and objects. We propose
973
that knowledge senders/receivers, as the actant of KT activity, can learn from human
agents, different business units, organizations, technologies and/or objects, and hence, they
adjust their behavior in various ways in an intertwined network. We posit that the degree of
KT, and the level/amount of content generated and disseminated by knowledge sender/
receivers are influenced by some antecedents within the infrastructure of KT actor–
networks. These antecedents are carefully investigated in this research to delineate how
they operate and interact in a network of KT.

Methodology
To conduct a synthesized comprehensive review, we followed the suggestions by Leidner
and Kayworth (2006) to (i) carry out a literature review, (ii) select and apply appropriate
criteria for inclusion and exclusion of papers in the study, and finally (iii) develop a
conceptual framework grounded in the literature.
In order to review the literature, we proceeded with a search of databases in management
and information systems (IS), e.g. AIS, Science Direct, EBSCO and ABI/Inform. To identify
the relevant articles for our review, we utilized multiple terms and their combinations, such
as knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing, and knowledge exchange. Furthermore, to
ensure that our review is comprehensive, we reviewed bibliographies of the seminal papers
and assessed the relevant work, known as backward research approach. Since the literature
on this domain is very broad, we narrowed down our pool to empirical papers that directly

Figure 1.
The proposed
research framework
EBR focused on KT or KS. We thus excluded papers that discuss other theoretically overlapping
31,6 but distinct concepts, such as knowledge interpretation from our review. Our search was
also limited to articles published between 1987 and 2017. To determine the suitability of the
papers for our study, we reviewed articles’ abstract, introduction, and discussion/conclusion
(Swanson and Ramiller, 1993).
As a result of adopting a multi-staged review approach discussed above, we finally
974 identified 115 distinctive papers, which meet all the criteria listed above to be included in our
review. Each selected paper was then further reviewed with respect to our research aim,
adopted definitions, research constructs and conceptual framework. Having conducted this
critical and comprehensive analysis, 91 uniquely independent antecedents were identified.
Upon further classification and integration, six key constitutes emerged from our review
that encompasses all identified antecedents. The six key KT constitutes include knowledge
exchange, knowledge sender/receiver, organization, knowledge, team and technology.
Table I provides a summary of these six network constitutes along with a statistical outline
of each and their contributions to the whole review.
By comparing the first and last columns of Table I, we can identify the areas in the
literature that are less developed. In the next section, each identified constitute and its
antecedents are described.

Findings
Following ANT, we grouped all KT antecedents into six. As demonstrated in Table I, the
first two constitutes, knowledge exchange and knowledge sender/receiver account for over
half of antecedents involved in KT. Knowledge exchange refers to all significant aspects
within the flow of knowledge. In fact, it is the actual process through which KT happens.
Therefore, it was placed at the center of the model (Figure 1) to highlight that all other five
KT network constitutes are linked together through knowledge exchange. Antecedents such
as the levels of trust and risk involved, coordination requirements, speed and quality of
knowledge being exchanged through a reciprocal flow between a sender and receiver are all
investigated in this constitute of KT. Table II depicts all 27 identified antecedents which
encompass knowledge exchange based on prior research.
The second major constitute of KT deals with the role of sender/receiver within the
process of KT (Minbaeva, 2007). Effective KT highly depends on the ability and motivation
of the knowledge sender to articulate knowledge and communicate with the receiver for an

Percentage of No. of antecedents

Total no. of antecedents from per each constitute
KT network antecedents per each total identified Total no. of cited more than three
constitutes constitute antecedents reviewed studies times

Knowledge 27 30 65 10
exchange
Knowledge 20 22 75 9
sender/
receiver
Organization 15 16 52 5
Knowledge 11 12 45 6
Team 10 11 13 2
Table I. Technology 8 9 23 2
Descriptive statistics Total 91 100 – –
No. Antecedents Definition Studies

Knowledge exchange
1 Trust
2 Tie strength
3 Communication competence
4 Arduous relationship
5 Time
6 Shared understanding
The extent of accuracy and
credibility of KT and its knowledge
transferors
The extent of closeness and
frequency of interactions within a
relationship between two parties
The skills require to perform
appropriate communicative
behaviors, e.g. face-to-face
communication in the process of KT
An emotionally laborious and
distant relationship between a
source and a recipient of knowledge
KT requires time to find the right
person, contact the person, retrieve
the necessary knowledge, and
integrate the new knowledge
It refers to the similarities in grasp
and the level of experience between a
consultant and client
Barson et al. (2000), Disterer (2001), Sharratt and Usoro, 2003; Levin and
Cross, 2004; Malhotra and Majchrzak, 2004; Bock et al., 2005; Inkpen and
Tsang, 2005; Riege, 2005; Chiu et al., 2006; Hodgkinson, 2006; Watson
and Hewett, 2006; Zárraga-Oberty and De Saá-Pérez, 2006; Jabr, 2007;
Riusala and Smale, 2007; Li et al., 2007; Park and Im, 2007; Pee et al.,
2007; Riege, 2007; Ardichvili, 2008; Becerra et al., 2008; Bonache and
Zárraga-Oberty, 2008; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Lin et al., 2008; Liao,
2008; Van Wijk et al., 2008; Duan et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2014a; Chen
et al., 2014b; Li et al., 2014; Kang and Hau, 2014; Ghobadi, 2015;
Battistella et al., 2016; Bellini et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2016; Burmeister,
2017; Nakauchi et al., 2017)
(Hansen, 1999; Reagans and McEvily, 2003; Levin and Cross, 2004;
Riege, 2005; Li et al., 2007; Van Wijk et al., 2008; Kang and Hau, 2014;
Ghobadi, 2015; Leonardi and Meyer, 2015; Battistella et al., 2016; Bellini
et al., 2016; Burmeister, 2017; Nakauchi et al., 2017; Peltokorpi and
Yamao, 2017)
(Albino et al., 2004; Riege, 2005; Ko et al., 2005a; Ko et al., 2005b; Yih-
Tong Sun and Scott, 2005; Jabr, 2007; Joshi et al., 2007; Pee et al., 2007;
Murray and Peyrefitte, 2007; Xu and Ma, 2008; Chen et al., 2014a;
Ghobadi, 2015; Leonardi and Meyer, 2015; Miller et al., 2016)
(Szulanski, 1996; Ko et al., 2005a; Pee et al., 2007; Xu and Ma, 2008;
Szulanski et al., 2016)
(Riege, 2005; Jabr, 2007; Riege, 2007; Mueller, 2014; Zhao et al., 2015)
(Ko et al., 2005a; Pee et al., 2007; Teo and Bhattacherjee, 2014; Bellini
et al., 2016)
(continued)

KT
transfer

The antecedents of
knowledge

975
Antecedents of

Table II.
 31,6

976
EBR

Table II.
No. Antecedents Definition Studies

7 Risk- Ownership KT inherently involves some levels (Barson et al., 2000; Yih-Tong Sun and Scott, 2005; Riege, 2007; Becerra
of risk, particularly where et al., 2008)
proprietary knowledge is being
shared. It refers to the fear of losing
ownership of knowledge
8 Reciprocity The level of desire in maintaining (Barson et al., 2000; Bock et al., 2005; Chiu et al., 2006; Kang, 2016)
ongoing relationships with others
9 Social capital It refers to (i) structural capital, also (Van den Hooff and Huysman, 2009; Yu et al., 2012; Kang and Hau, 2014;
known as cognitive capital (e.g. Massaro et al., 2016)
shared values, language and codes)
and (ii) relational capital (e.g.
trusting inter-organizational
relationship)
10 Coordination The extent to which activities, (Chen et al., 2014a; Loebbecke et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2016)
people, routines and assignments
work together to accomplish
objectives and promote mutual
understanding
11 Communication flows Open and effective communication (Bresnen et al., 2003; Riege, 2005; Riege, 2007; Bellini et al., 2016)
(openness)
12 Communities of Practice (CoP) An effective approach to foster KT is (Disterer, 2001; Ghobadi, 2015; Massaro et al., 2016)
to think together, to stay in touch
with each other and to share ideas
with each other
13 Anticipated emotions and It refers to forward-looking affective (Ghobadi, 2015; Nylund and Raelin, 2015)
attitudes reactions, when the person imagines
the emotional consequences of
sharing or not sharing
14 Speed and quality The degree of speed and the level of (Jabr, 2007; Al-Salti, 2009)
quality in the knowledge being
transferred through an effective
communication
(continued)
No. Antecedents Definition Studies

15 KT target To identify the area/context/unit in (Barson et al., 2000)

which knowledge is employed
16 Intrusive Knowledge should be transferred (Riege, 2007)
through efficient mechanisms which
minimize the work requirements
17 Overload (Lean KT) How KT practices are designed to (Riege, 2007)
reduce information overload
18 Managers ‘Mistake Tolerance It captures and evaluates past honest (Riege, 2007)
Levels mistakes without being too critical of
them
19 Conflict avoidance It implies the attitudes of conflict (Disterer, 2001)
avoidance and conservative habits
which may prevent the transfer of
knowledge
20 Knowledge governance It includes all efforts to support (Zhao et al., 2015)
cross-project KT to pursue the best
result
21 Ease of KT It implies why individuals transfer (Reagans and McEvily, 2003)
knowledge to some individuals but
not to others
22 Collective training It refers to a process whereby (Nakauchi et al., 2017)
sources of knowledge are imparted
by involving knowledge recipients in
interactions with those who use it
23 Career advancement The degree to which a member (Sharratt and Usoro, 2003)
believes KT will affect their career
24 Accuracy How accurately the recipient (Szulanski et al., 2004)
reproduces a practice of the
organizational template
25 Density The extent to which knowledge (Nakauchi et al., 2017)
sender and receiver know each other
(continued)
transfer
knowledge

977
Antecedents of

Table II.
 31,6

978
EBR

Table II.
No. Antecedents Definition Studies

26 Diversity The number of knowledge elements (Brennecke and Rank, 2017)

27 Partner protectiveness
Knowledge sender and receiver
1 Motivation
(Source - Recipient)
2 Absorptive capacity
(Retentive capacity)
3 Disseminative capacity
that is connected to the knowledge
sender and receiver
It involves specialized personnel in KT,
e.g., technological gatekeepers and
specialized groups within organizational
structures, e.g., KT groups or the pricing
of access to proprietary information
The degree of willingness and belief
in the value of knowledge being
shared
It implies the ability to assess,
assimilate, institutionalize and apply
acquired knowledge
It refers to team members’
knowledge, skills, experience and
background which collectively
contribute to teams’ capability in KT
(Simonin, 1999)
(Szulanski, 1996; Barson et al., 2000; Disterer, 2001; Govindarajan and
Gupta, 2001; Malhotra and Majchrzak, 2004; Bock et al., 2005; Burgess,
2005; Ko et al., 2005a; Voelpel and Han, 2005; Dyer and Hatch, 2006;
Watson and Hewett, 2006; Riege and Zulpo, 2007; Milne, 2007;
Minbaeva, 2007; Ardichvili, 2008; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Lin et al.,
2008; Xu and Ma, 2008; Pérez-Nordtvedt et al., 2008; Al-Salti, 2009;
Oddou et al., 2009; Duan et al., 2010; Song, 2014; Teo and Bhattacherjee,
2014; Ghobadi, 2015; Bellini et al., 2016; Massaro et al., 2016; Miller et al.,
2016; Szulanski et al., 2016; Burmeister, 2017; Wei and Miraglia, 2017)
(Szulanski, 1996; Szulanski et al., 2004; Ko et al., 2005a; Dyer and Hatch,
2006; Inkpen and Pien, 2006; Pee et al., 2007; Riusala and Smale, 2007;
Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Van Wijk et al., 2008; Xu and Ma, 2008; Al-
Salti, 2009; Oddou et al., 2009; Yeoh, 2009; Duan et al., 2010; Meier, 2011;
Yu et al., 2012; Minbaeva et al., 2014; Song, 2014; Iyengar et al., 2015;
Zhao et al., 2015; Khan et al., 2015; Massaro et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2016;
Szulanski et al., 2016; Burmeister, 2017; Liao et al., 2017)
(Grant, 1997; Simonin, 1999; Barson et al., 2000; Govindarajan and
Gupta, 2001; Bresnen et al., 2003; Haghirian, 2003; Malhotra and
Majchrzak, 2004; Watson and Hewett, 2006; Joshi et al., 2007; Park and
Im, 2007; Riege, 2007; Ardichvili, 2008; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Lin
et al., 2008; Al-Salti, 2009; Yeoh, 2009; Oddou et al., 2009; Song, 2014;
Ghobadi, 2015; Zhao et al., 2015; Battistella et al., 2016; Massaro et al.,
2016; Burmeister, 2017; Nakauchi et al., 2017 )
(continued)
No. Antecedents Definition Studies

4 Experience The greater the level of prior (Simonin, 1999; Riege, 2005; Pee et al., 2007; Riege, 2007; Santhanam
experience/expertise of the et al., 2007; Ringberg and Reihlen, 2008; Oddou et al., 2009; Kamasak
knowledge seeker with the and Bulutlar, 2010; Duan et al., 2010; Kang and Hau, 2014; Argote and
underlying knowledge domain, the Fahrenkopf, 2016; Nakauchi et al., 2017)
less ambiguous the knowledge to be
transferred
5 Shared vision/goals It concerns a bonding mechanism (Inkpen and Tsang, 2005; Riege, 2005; Chiu et al., 2006; Li et al., 2007;
that helps different parts of an Van Wijk et al., 2008; Ghobadi, 2015; Bellini et al., 2016; Peltokorpi and
organization to integrate resources Yamao, 2017; Liao et al., 2017)
to reach the organization’s goals
6 Power and status seeking The degree that a person/party/ (Disterer, 2001; Jabr, 2007; Riege, 2007; Riusala and Smale, 2007; Liao,
authorities agent can change or control the 2008; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Oddou et al., 2009)
behaviour of other persons/parties/
agents within KT process
7 Credibility It refers to the reliability and (Szulanski, 1996; Dyer and Hatch, 2006; Elwyn et al., 2007; Joshi et al.,
reputation of a knowledge sender 2007; Pee et al., 2007; Al-Salti, 2009; Li et al., 2014; Ghobadi, 2015)
8 Tenure It concerns (i) the respondent’s (Riege, 2005; Riege, 2007; Liebowitz et al., 2007; Kang and Hau, 2014;
length of employment, (ii) the length Ghobadi, 2015; Nakauchi et al., 2017)
of the time that team members have
work together, and (iii) the age of the
respondent
9 Personality differences The differences in individual (Reagans and McEvily, 2003; Riege, 2005; Yih-Tong Sun and Scott, 2005;
(gender, race, rank) characters in terms of their tastes, Riege, 2007; Nakauchi et al., 2017)
preferences, gender, race education
level, and rank which might affect
their direct confrontation and
communication with relevant parties
10 Uncertainty Knowledge sender or receiver are not (Disterer, 2001; Battistella et al., 2016)
certain about the value of the
knowledge to be transferred
11 Identification It refers to one’s conception of self in (Chiu et al., 2006; Ghobadi, 2015)
terms of the defining features of self-
inclusive social category
(continued)
transfer
knowledge

979
Antecedents of

Table II.
 31,6

980
EBR

Table II.
No. Antecedents Definition Studies

12 Proximity Similarity in senders’ embeddedness (Slaughter and Kirsch, 2006; Brennecke and Rank, 2017)
in the knowledge network
13 Job security It implies apprehension or fear (Riege, 2005; Riege, 2007)
towards sharing knowledge because
it may jeopardize one’s job security
14 Sense of self-worth It captures the extent to which (Bock et al., 2005)
employees see themselves as
providing value to their
organizations through their KT
activities
15 Perceived punishment Employees are less likely to (Burgess, 2005)
exchange information in the absence
of openness, psychological safety
16 Incoherent paradigms It considers the difficulties in (Disterer, 2001)
articulating and justifying personal
beliefs which do not fit with the
ruling paradigms of the organization
17 Self-efficacy The degree of influence on (Kang, 2016)
downward KT
18 Recipient’s starting conditions It refers to knowledge receiver’s (Ghobadi, 2015)
mind-set and level of knowledge
19 Need to become part of the It refers to the desire of individuals (Ghobadi, 2015)
group to feel part of the team and share
knowledge with other team members
20 Distributive justice It is defined as the perceived fairness (Ghobadi, 2015)
of organizational rewards that an
employee may receive after sharing
knowledge with others
Organization
1 Culture The existence of collective (Simonin, 1999; Barson et al., 2000; Disterer, 2001; Gold et al., 2001;
characteristics, behaviour’s, norms McDermott and O’Dell, 2001; Bresnen et al., 2003; Haghirian, 2003;
and values that influence the Albino et al., 2004; Bock et al., 2005; Burgess, 2005; Inkpen and Tsang,
interactions between individuals and 2005; Riege, 2005;Voelpel and Han, 2005; Liebowitz et al., 2007; Riege,
(continued)
No. Antecedents
2 Structure
3 Distance
4 Reward and recognition
system
5 Resources
6 Template- Methodology
7 Context
8 Direction and strategy
Table II.
Definition
their intention towards KT
behaviour
The degree of bureaucracy,
hierarchy and flexibility determines
the level of formality and control
over KT practices
It refers to geographic (space-
distance), linguistic and normative
distance in KT behaviour
An effective incentive system
ensures that everyone contributes to
what and to whom it matters
It refers to all types of resources and
infrastructure to successfully
support transfer practices and
opportunities
It implies all routines and methods
for identifying, acquiring,
structuring, generating, storing,
distributing and assessing
knowledge
The degree to which an
organizational context supports the
development of KT
It highlights the essential need for
senior management support of KT
activities
Studies
2007; Riege and Zulpo, 2007; Ajmal and Koskinen, 2008; Ardichvili,
2008; Ringberg and Reihlen, 2008; Ambos and Ambos, 2009; Salti, 2009;
Van den Hooff and Huysman, 2009; Duan et al., 2010; Tuan, 2012; Li
et al., 2014; Mueller, 2014; Al- Battistella et al., 2016; Benbya, 2016; Kang,
2016; Massaro et al., 2016; Burmeister, 2017; Wei and Miraglia, 2017)
(Grant, 1997; Gold et al., 2001; Bresnen et al., 2003; Sharratt and Usoro,
2003; Riege, 2005; Ivory et al., 2007; Riege, 2007; Riusala and Smale,
2007; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Van Wijk et al., 2008; Van den Hooff
and Huysman, 2009; Zaidman and Brock, 2009; Duan et al., 2010;
Ghobadi, 2015; Benbya, 2016)
(DeCarolis and Deeds, 1999; Simonin, 1999; Barson et al., 2000; Van Wijk
et al., 2008; Al-Salti, 2009; Ambos and Ambos, 2009; Jones and Low,
2006; Duan et al., 2010; Ghobadi, 2015; Ahammad et al., 2016; Battistella
et al., 2016; Bellini et al., 2016)
(Burgess, 2005; Riege, 2005; Riege, 2007; Bellini et al., 2016; Benbya,
2016)
(Barson et al., 2000; Riege, 2005; Riege, 2007; Massaro et al., 2016)
(Barson et al., 2000; Jensen and Szulanski, 2007; Wei and Miraglia, 2017)
(Szulanski et al., 2004; Van Wijk et al., 2008; Battistella et al., 2016)
(Barson et al., 2000; Riege, 2005; Riege, 2007)
(continued)
transfer
knowledge
981
Antecedents of
 31,6

982
EBR

Table II.
No. Antecedents Definition Studies

9 Organizational size It facilitates ease of sharing (Riege, 2005; Riege, 2007; Van Wijk et al., 2008)
10 Transactive memory It refers to the knowledge of who (Yu et al., 2012; Ghobadi, 2015)
knows what
11 Space A physical work environment and (Riege, 2005, 2007)
layout of work areas may restrict/
promote KT
12 Competitiveness The degree of external or internal (Riege, 2005, 2007)
competitiveness within and across
business units which may
encourage/discourage them towards
KT
13 Procedural It concerns what knowledge sources (Ardichvili et al., 2003; Garfield, 2006)
can/cannot be shared due to security
and confidentiality considerations
14 Cost It refers to the cost of managing KT (Barson et al., 2000)
collaboration.
15 Ethics The subjective portion of the starting (Tuan, 2012)
points of any human behaviour
process encompassing business
Knowledge
1 Tacitness (Codifiability) It refers to the degree that (Simonin, 1999; Reagans and McEvily, 2003; Bou-Llusar and Segarra-
knowledge can be broken down into Ciprés, 2006; Inkpen and Pien, 2006; Zhang, 2006; Riusala and Smale,
specific components which are 2007; Becerra et al., 2008; Pérez-Nordtvedt et al., 2008; Xu and Ma, 2008;
unambiguous and easy to Yeoh, 2009; Kang et al., 2010; Teo and Bhattacherjee, 2014; Park et al.,
understand 2015; Battistella et al., 2016; Loebbecke et al., 2016; Burmeister, 2017;
Kudaravalli et al., 2017; Nakauchi et al., 2017)
2 Availability The extent to what knowledge is (Malhotra and Majchrzak, 2004; Watson and Hewett, 2006; Ivory et al.,
available and easily accessible for 2007; Ajmal and Koskinen, 2008; Bonache and Zárraga-Oberty, 2008; Xu
use and Ma, 2008; Lin et al., 2008; Benbya, 2016; Nakauchi et al., 2017)
3 Casual ambiguity The degree of understanding (Szulanski, 1996; Szulanski et al., 2004; Dyer and Hatch, 2006; Riege and
between determinants and Zulpo, 2007; Bonache and Zárraga-Oberty, 2008; Easterby-Smith et al.,
consequences of actions
(continued)
No. Antecedents
4 Complexity- Difficulty
5 Value of knowledge
importance
6 Language
7 Specificity-
Contextuality- Criticality
8 Proneness
9 Systemic
10 Volatility
11 Comprehensiveness
Team
1 Responsibility- Leadership
2 Openness to ideas
3 Climate
Table II.
Definition
The extent to what KT is demanding
and complicated and it consists of
several interacting elements, such as
related practices, individuals, skills,
resources
The degree of value perceived in KT
which promotes higher engagement
in the process of KT
The difficulty and influence of
language on the process of
knowledge transfers, particularly
when it meant to occur in a foreign
language
The more knowledge is context-
specific, the more difficult it can be
used in different contexts
The degree of conjecture on the
utility of the transferred knowledge
Autonomous nature of knowledge
The temporary value of the
knowledge
The extent to which knowledge is
unambiguous, diverse and complete
Knowledge needs to be “nurtured,
supported, enhanced, and cared for”
within teams
Being keen to deviate from a
common trend of thought
Studies
2008; Van Wijk et al., 2008; Xu and Ma, 2008; Duan et al., 2010; Szulanski
et al., 2016)
(Simonin, 1999; Bou-Llusar and Segarra-Ciprés, 2006; Riusala and
Smale, 2007; Easterby-Smith et al., 2008; Xu and Ma, 2008; Kang et al.,
2010; Leonardi and Meyer, 2015; Battistella et al., 2016)
(Sharratt and Usoro, 2003; Malhotra and Majchrzak, 2004; Riege, 2005;
Watson and Hewett, 2006; Riege, 2007; Pérez-Nordtvedt et al., 2008;
Kang et al., 2010; Battistella et al., 2016)
(Disterer, 2001; Haghirian, 2003; Riege, 2005; Voelpel and Han, 2005;
Chiu et al., 2006; Riege, 2007; Duan et al., 2010; Peltokorpi and Yamao,
2017)
(Bou-Llusar and Segarra-Ciprés, 2006; Battistella et al., 2016; Burmeister,
2017)
(Szulanski et al., 2004)
(Bou-Llusar and Segarra-Ciprés, 2006)
(Zhang, 2006)
(Benbya, 2016)
(Disterer, 2001; Riege, 2005; Voelpel and Han, 2005; Oddou et al., 2009;
Mueller, 2014; Ghobadi, 2015; Bellini et al., 2016; Massaro et al., 2016;
Burmeister, 2017)
(Yih-Tong Sun and Scott, 2005; Duan et al., 2010; Bellini et al., 2016; Liao
et al., 2017)
(Yih-Tong Sun and Scott, 2005; Zhao et al., 2015)
(continued)
transfer
knowledge
983
Antecedents of

Table II.
No. Antecedents
4 Confidence
5 Heterogeneity
6 Autonomy
7 Team building activities
8 Output orientation
9 Interdependencies
10 Perceived indispensability
Technology
31,6
984
EBR
Definition Studies
The relational and trusting
relationship would implicitly effect
KT
Team confidence in the individual/ (Yih-Tong Sun and Scott, 2005)
acceptance of the individual
It refers to the degree of dispersion (Ghobadi, 2015)
among team members in terms of
their demographic characteristics,
experiences, skills, cognitions, and
values
The extent to which a team in the (Ghobadi, 2015)
organization has been given the
freedom, independence, and
discretion to determine what actions
are required and how best to execute
them
Communication, problem solving, (Bellini et al., 2016)
decision making, adaptability,
planning, and trust building
activities
It focuses on the intended final (Mueller, 2014)
product or results of teamwork
It refers to the degree to which team (Ghobadi, 2015)
members depend on each other for
completing their tasks
It reflects the perceived importance (Ghobadi, 2015)
of one’s own contributions for the
team outcome
(continued)
No. Antecedents
1 IT systems and tools
2 Technical support
3 Compatibility
4 Reluctance to use integrated
IT systems
5 Perceived usefulness/ Ease of
use
6 Channel richness
(effectiveness)
7 Training
8 Expectations
Table II.
Definition Studies
It considers communication channels (Alavi and Leidner, 2001; Barson et al., 2000; Bollinger and Smith, 2001;
used in the provision and exchange Gold et al., 2001; Bresnen et al., 2003; Malhotra and Majchrzak, 2004;
of Knowledge Murray and Peyrefitte, 2007; Riege, 2007; Ardichvili, 2008; Al-Salti,
2009; Van den Hooff and Huysman, 2009; Duan et al., 2010; Yu et al.,
2012; Ghobadi, 2015; Bellini et al., 2016)
It refers to the internal and/or (Riege, 2005; Riege, 2007; Santhanam et al., 2007; Ardichvili, 2008)
external supports and immediate
maintenance of integrated
technology in KT
It concerns the ability to share any (Riege, 2005; Riege, 2007; Yu et al., 2012)
type of knowledge sources across
various technology components/
infrastructures
The lack of familiarity and (Riege, 2005; Voelpel and Han, 2005; Riege, 2007)
experience with systems and tools
The degree of perceived value in the (Sharratt and Usoro, 2003; Nakauchi et al., 2017)
applicability and usefulness of a
technology/system in the process of
KT
The degree of effectiveness of (Xu and Yao, 2006; Pee et al., 2007)
knowledge being exchanged
between a vendor and a client by
using an electronic communication
channel
The level of training provided by an (Riege, 2005; Bellini et al., 2016)
organization to familiarize their staff
with the new IT/non-IT systems
used for KT
It refers to the level of expectations (Riege, 2005, 2007)
as to what technology can do or
cannot do with respect to KT
activities
transfer
knowledge
985
Antecedents of
EBR effective sharing (Massaro et al., 2016; Miller et al., 2016). Similar to knowledge sender, the
31,6 capacity of knowledge receiver to absorb and use the transferred knowledge plays an
important role in the success of KT (Vaghefi et al., 2018). It should be noted that the
antecedents involved in knowledge sender/receiver are different from the knowledge
exchange. In knowledge exchange, our focus is on the process of exchange, whereas in
knowledge sender/receiver antecedent, the specifications of knowledge sender/receiver are
986 investigated. A total of 20 antecedents are recognized in this KT object, which include
sender/receiver’s motivation, experience, shared vision/goals, credibility and tenure. A full
list of antecedents along with a brief definition and a sample of studies referred to each are
illustrated in Table II.
The third most significant KT network constitute relates to the organization, which
highlights the importance of social and contextual factors influencing knowledge actants
and objects and the interplay between them (Riege and Zulpo, 2007; Liebowitz et al., 2007;
Ardichvili, 2008). A total of 15 antecedents, including structure, distance, space, cost, etc.
have been referred by prior studies as the key influential factors that define the organization
of any KT activity.
Knowledge is the fourth recognized constitute of KT which accounts over 10 per cent of
antecedents from the total antecedents. Indeed, the first essential enabler of any KT is
related to the type and nature of knowledge being transferred. Extant research has revealed
the significant role of antecedents related to knowledge, such as explicitness (Bou-Llusar
and Segarra-Ciprés, 2006), simplicity (Ambos and Ambos, 2009) and availability (Nakauchi
et al., 2017). See Table II for the full list of 11 variables of this antecedent. The last two KT
constitutes highlight the importance of team and technology in any successful KT practice.
In any KT, a team of at least two, i.e. sender and receiver must work together to exchange
targeted knowledge. Antecedents, such as the extent of team members’ openness to transfer
new ideas/knowledge (Bellini et al., 2016), autonomy to decide on various stages of KT
(Ghobadi, 2015), and the degree of team being output oriented (Mueller, 2014) are included in
this constitute. Finally, technology refers to the technical mechanisms underlying KT.
Today, many organizations apply IT/IS as the main communication channel which provides
them with a faster and more secured means of transferring knowledge. However, soft KT
via IT/IS brings its own challenges, so issues such as the compatibility of the systems in
between sender and receiver (Yu et al., 2012), the level of technical support (Wehn and
Montalvo, 2018) training about the technology being used for transfer (Bellini et al., 2016)
and the effectiveness/richness of the channel of exchange (Pee et al., 2007) are essential
antecedents to be considered in this constitute of KT (Table II).
Having presented the six main network constitutes of KT, it is imperative to note that not
all identified ones are equally applicable and/or significant in all KT contexts, both inter and
intra organizations. This is not a surprising finding, as this paper intended to provide a
comprehensive, yet a context-free review of antecedents affecting KT which covers both
firm level and inter-firm KT considerations. To this end, our research aimed to provide a
holistic roadmap for organizations to select and employ the KT constitutes and their
corresponding antecedents that they find relevant to their KT practices, yet the findings
should be interpreted with discretion.

Research contributions
Our paper makes important contributions. From a theoretical perspective, adopting a
synthesized approach based on ANT puts forward a valid theoretical foundation on further
understanding of KT and its network constitutes. This theoretical lens helped us analyze the
complex organizational behavior of KT from objects and actants’ view. Accordingly, our
research contributed to theoretically extending the application of ANT in KT. Moreover, our Antecedents of
proposed framework contributes to KT research by providing ontology of the underlying knowledge
constitutes of KT from a socio-technical point of view. Therefore, by adopting a
comprehensive approach to identify the key antecedents of KT, we contribute to
transfer
understanding the motivational, behavioral, technological and organizational aspects of KT.
Taking all aforementioned aspects into account, this research contributes to existing
literature by offering a comprehensive context-free literature review on KT, which
synthesizes and generalizes the findings of existing knowledge on KT. 987
From a practical perspective, this study offers useful insights for both knowledge
workers and business managers to help improve their KT processes and successfully
manage them within and across their organizations. Our framework shows that a successful
development and implementation of KT demands a high level of coordination and
communication throughout the organizational structure, policies and culture. Hence, we
draw managers’ attention to the significance of adopting a holistic perspective in
implementing KT and posit that managers need to carefully consider all key constitutes
(that are applicable to their work). Indeed, managers may not be able to realize the potential
values of KT if they underestimate key points, such as the characteristics of their
organization, the type of technology used, and the nature and the attributes of knowledge
being transferred. While providing no mandate, our framework can be used as a guideline
for managers and organizations to understand the key antecedents that could affect the
process of inter and intra organizational KT, and its eventual success.
Moreover, our research framework has the potential to provide an assessment tool for
KT’s effectiveness. For example, through the lens of knowledge sender/receiver category,
organizations can assess the strengths and weaknesses/shortcomings of a KT project team.
Indeed, by using the six KT constitutes identified in this research, organizations can outline
how an assessment tool can be put together to identify the deficiencies in their existing KT
system and thus find ways for improving it. For instance, an organization with different
business units is required to apply effective communication models and methods within and
between its businesses to increase efficiency, decrease wastes and finally enhance the
organization’s competitiveness. By applying our framework, managers can find potential
communication barriers (noises) that may prevent an appropriate KT model, e.g. lack of
trust, accuracy and credibility of the KT and its transferors (Table II). Also based on their
current organization’s circumstances, managers can detect which one of the constitutes or
antecedents works better in interactive vs. push or pull method of communication. The
underlying assumption in here is that organizations are not static entities and their
environment and inter and intra organizational interactions are dynamic in nature. This can
be considered as one of the key empirical contributions of this study, as the existing
literature provides little direction to managers on how to reap the most benefits from their
investment on KT practices. In this regard, we encourage managers to adopt a holistic
perspective on where managerial efforts and resources should be invested to foster KT in
their organizations.

Conclusion, limitations and future studies

In this paper, we provided an overview of the current knowledge on KT, and proposed a
conceptual framework based on ANT, which highlighted the key constitutes and
antecedents that influence KT. Based on ANT, we categorized KT constitutes as actants and
objects. The KT constitutes that are related to actants were human-oriented, while the
object-related constitutes were about the artifacts that facilitate KT. We found three
constitutes of actants related to organization, team, and knowledge sender/receiver, and
EBR three constitutes of objects related to technology, knowledge exchange and knowledge. For
31,6 each constitute, the main antecedents, including those that facilitate or impede KT were
investigated. Our findings advance extant research on the key constitutes that influence KT
process:
 individual choices on knowledge characteristics;
 knowledge exchange environment;
988  knowledge senders and receivers’ specifications;
 organizational capacity;
 team provisions; and
 KT technological enablers.

A few limitations need to be acknowledged. The first limitation is related to the selected
keywords for review. KT literature is increasingly growing and since the findings of this
research are based on the reviewed studies in the current literature, universality and
generalizability of the results might be questioned. Similarly, as our research is established
on the findings of the reviewed papers, the limitation of these studies may restrict the
findings of our research (Ghobadi, 2015). Future studies may build on our findings to push
our understanding of KT research. Additionally, as our focus was on identifying the actants
and objects of the KT (demonstrated in Figure 1), investigating the interactions between
them as the main KT network constitutes was beyond the scope of this research (and hence
not examined). Future research is needed to pay specific attention to such relationships and
carefully assess the nature and direction of the link between the KT constitutes to further
develop this research findings. Moreover, for each constitute, new theoretical perspectives
can be employed to add further insights to the body of extant knowledge. Finally, as
discussed in the findings section, some constitutes such as technology are still
underdeveloped, and while few scholars have highlighted the significant role of these
constitutes and their antecedents, future research is needed in such domains to enrich the
existing knowledge base.

References
Ahammad, M.F., Tarba, S.Y., Liu, Y. and Glaister, K.W. (2016), “Knowledge transfer and cross-border
acquisition performance: the impact of cultural distance and employee retention”, International
Business Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 66-75.
Ahmad, N. and Daghfous, A. (2010), “Knowledge sharing through inter-organizational knowledge
networks: challenges and opportunities in the United Arab Emirates”, European Business
Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 153-174.
Ajmal, M.M. and Koskinen, K.U. (2008), “Knowledge transfer in project-based organizations: an
organizational culture perspective”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 7-15.
Al-Salti, Z. (2009), “Knowledge transfer and acquisition in IS outsourcing: towards a conceptual
framework”, UK Academy for Information Systems Conference proceeding, London, pp. 1-11.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), “Knowledge management and knowledge management systems:
conceptual foundations and research issues”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-136.
Albino, V., Garavelli, A. and Gorgoglione, M. (2004), “Organization and technology in knowledge
transfer”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 584-600.
Alcadipani, R. and Hassard, J. (2010), “Actor-network theory, organizations and critique: towards a
politics of organizing”, Organization, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 419-435.
Ambos, T.C. and Ambos, B. (2009), “The impact of distance on knowledge transfer effectiveness in Antecedents of
multinational corporations”, Journal of International Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
knowledge
Ardichvili, A. (2008), “Learning and knowledge sharing in virtual communities of practice: motivators,
barriers, and enablers”, Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 541-554. transfer
Ardichvili, A., Page, V. and Wentling, T. (2003), “Motivation and barriers to participation in virtual
knowledge-sharing communities of practice”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 64-77.
Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000), “Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms”,
989
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 150-169.
Argote, L. and Fahrenkopf, E. (2016), “Knowledge transfer in organizations: the roles of members,
tasks, tools, and networks”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 136,
pp. 146-159.
Barson, R.J. et al. (2000), “Inter-and intra-organisational barriers to sharing knowledge in the extended
supply-chain”, Proceedings of the eBusiness and eWork, Madrid, pp. 367-373.
Battistella, C., De Toni, A.F. and Pillon, R. (2016), “Inter-organisational technology/knowledge transfer:
a framework from critical literature review”, The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 41 No. 5,
pp. 1195-1234.
Becerra, M., Lunnan, R. and Huemer, L. (2008), “Trustworthiness, risk, and the transfer of tacit and
explicit knowledge between alliance partners”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45 No. 4,
pp. 691-713.
Bellini, A., Aarseth, W. and Hosseini, A. (2016), “Effective knowledge transfer in successful partnering
projects”, Energy Procedia, Vol. 96, pp. 218-228.
Benbya, H. (2016), “Mechanisms for knowledge transfer in the context of knowledge platforms: a
governance perspective”, Systèmes D’information and Management, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 39-67.
Blome, C., Schoenherr, T. and Eckstein, D. (2014), “The impact of knowledge transfer and complexity
on supply chain flexibility: a knowledge-based view”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 147, pp. 307-316.
Bock, G.W., Zmud, R.W., Kim, Y.G. and Lee, J.N. (2005), “Behavioral intention formation in knowledge
sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and
organizational climate”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 87-111.
Bollinger, A.S. and Smith, R.D. (2001), “Managing organizational knowledge as a strategic asset”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 8-18.
Bonache, J. and Zárraga-Oberty, C. (2008), “Determinants of the success of international assignees as
knowledge transferors: a theoretical framework”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Bou-Llusar, J.C. and Segarra-Ciprés, M. (2006), “Strategic knowledge transfer and its implications for
competitive advantage: an integrative conceptual framework”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 100-112.
Brennecke, J. and Rank, O. (2017), “The firm’s knowledge network and the transfer of advice
among corporate inventors – a multilevel network study”, Research Policy, Vol. 46 No. 4,
pp. 768-783.
Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. (2003), “Social practices and the
management of knowledge in project environments”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 157-166.
Burgess, D. (2005), “What motivates employees to transfer knowledge outside their work unit?”, Journal
of Business Communication, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 324-348.
Burmeister, A. (2017), “Repatriate knowledge transfer: a systematic review of the literature”, in Bader,
B., Schuster, T. and Bader, A.K. (Eds), Expatriate Management, Palgrave Macmillan, London,
pp. 225-264.
EBR Chen, C.J., Hsiao, Y.C. and Chu, M.A. (2014a), “Transfer mechanisms and knowledge transfer: the
cooperative competency perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 12,
31,6 pp. 2531-2541.
Chen, Y.H., Lin, T.P. and Yen, D.C. (2014b), “How to facilitate inter-organizational knowledge sharing:
the impact of trust”, Information and Management, Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 568-578.
Chiu, C.M., Hsu, M.H. and Wang, E.T. (2006), “Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
990 communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 1872-1888.
Couldry, N. (2008), “Actor network theory and media: do they connect and on what terms?”, in Hepp, A.,
Krotz, F., Moores, S. and Winter, C. (Eds), Connectivity, Networks and Flows: Conceptualizing
Contemporary Communications, Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ, pp. 93-110.
DeCarolis, D.M. and Deeds, D.L. (1999), “The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge
on firm performance: an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 10, pp. 953-968.
Disterer, G. (2001), ““Individual and social barriers to knowledge transfer”, Proceedings of the 34th
Annual HI International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-34) in Washington, DC, IEEE
Press, pp. 7.
Duan, Y., Nie, W. and Coakes, E. (2010), “Identifying key factors affecting transnational knowledge
transfer”, Information and Management, Vol. 47 Nos 7/8, pp. 356-363.
Dyer, J.H. and Hatch, N.W. (2006), “Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers:
creating advantage through network relationships”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 27
No. 8, pp. 701-719.
Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M.A. and Tsang, E.W. (2008), “Inter-organizational knowledge
transfer: current themes and future prospects”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45
No. 4, pp. 677-690.
Elder-Vass, D. (2015), “Disassembling actor-network theory”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 45
No. 1, pp. 100-121.
Elwyn, G., Taubert, M. and Kowalczuk, J. (2007), “Sticky knowledge: a possible model for investigating
implementation in healthcare contexts”, Implementation Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 44-52.
Frank, A.G., Riberio, J.L.D. and Echeveste, M.E. (2016), “Factors influencing knowledge transfer
between NPD teams: a taxonomic analysis based on a sociotechnical approach”, R&D
Management, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Garfield, S. (2006), “Reasons why people don’t share their knowledge”, Knowledge Management Review,
Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 10-11.
Ghobadi, S. (2015), “What drives knowledge sharing in software development teams: a lliterature
review and classification framework”, Information and Management, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 82-97.
Goh, S. (2002), “Managing effective knowledge transfer: an integrative framework and some practice
implications”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 23-30.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A. and Segars, A.H. (2001), “Knowledge management: an organizational
capabilities perspective”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 185-214.
Govindarajan, V. and Gupta, A.K. (2001), “Building an effective global business team”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 63-71.
Grant, R.M. (1997), “The knowledge-based view of the firm: implications for management practice”,
Long Range Planning, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 450-454.
Greenhalgh, T. and Stones, R. (2010), “Theorising big IT programmes in healthcare: strong
structuration theory meets actor-network theory”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 70 No. 9,
pp. 1285-1294.
Haghirian, P. (2003), “Does culture really matter? Cultural influences on the knowledge transfer process Antecedents of
within multinational corporations”, Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on
Information Systems, ECIS Press, Naples, p. 70.
knowledge
Hansen, M.T. (1999), “The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across
transfer
organization subunits”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 82-111.
Hodgkinson, D.M. (2006), “Collaborative behaviour amongst LIS students”, Education for Information,
Vol. 24 Nos 2/3, pp. 125-138.
Inkpen, A.C. and Pien, W. (2006), “An examination of collaboration and knowledge transfer: China–
991
Singapore Suzhou industrial park”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 4,
pp. 779-811.
Inkpen, A.C. and Tsang, E.W. (2005), “Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 146-165.
Ivory, C.J., Alderman, N., Thwaites, A.T., McLoughlin, I.P. and Vaughan, R. (2007), “Working around
the barriers to creating and sharing knowledge in Capital goods projects: the client’s
perspective”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 224-240.
Iyengar, K., Sweeney, J.R. and Montealegre, R. (2015), “Information technology use as a learning
mechanism: the impact of IT use on knowledge transfer effectiveness, absorptive capacity, and
franchisee performance”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 615-641.
Jabr, N.H. (2007), “Physicians’ attitudes towards knowledge transfer and sharing”, Competitiveness
Review, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 248-260.
Jensen, R.J. and Szulanski, G. (2007), “Template use and the effectiveness of knowledge transfer”,
Management Science, Vol. 53 No. 11, pp. 1716-1730.
Joshi, K.D., Sarker, S. and Sarker, S. (2007), “Knowledge transfer within information systems
development teams: examining the role of knowledge source attributes”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 322-335.
Justesen, L. and Mouritsen, J. (2011), “Effects of actor-network theory in accounting research”,
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 161-193.
Kamas ak, R. and Bulutlar, F. (2010), “The influence of knowledge sharing on innovation”, European
Business Review, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 306-317.
Kang, J. (2016), “Knowledge withholding: psychological hindrance to the innovation diffusion within an
organisation”, Knowledge Management Research and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 144-149.
Kang, J., Rhee, M. and Kang, K.H. (2010), “Revisiting knowledge transfer: effects of knowledge
characteristics on organizational effort for knowledge transfer”, Expert Systems with
Applications, Vol. 37 No. 12, pp. 8155-8160.
Kang, M. and Hau, Y.S. (2014), “Multi-level analysis of knowledge transfer: a knowledge recipient’s
perspective”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 758-776.
Khan, Z., Shenkar, O. and Lew, Y.K. (2015), “Knowledge transfer from international joint ventures to
local suppliers in a developing economy”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 46 No. 6,
pp. 656-675.
Ko, D.G., Kirsch, L.J. and King, W.R. (2005a), “Antecedents of knowledge transfer from consultants to
clients in enterprise system implementations”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 59-85.
Ko, H., Cho, C.H. and Roberts, M.S. (2005b), “Internet uses and gratifications: a structural equation
model of interactive advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 57-70.
Kudaravalli, S., Faraj, S. and Johnson, S.L. (2017), “A configural approach to coordinating expertise in
software development teams”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 43-64.
Latour, B. (1996), “On actor-network theory: a few clarifications”, Soziale Welt, Vol. 47, pp. 369-381.
Latour, B. (2005), Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
EBR Law, J. (2008), “Actor network theory and material semiotics”, in Turner, B.S. (Ed.), The New Blackwell
Companion to Social Theory, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 141-158.
31,6
Leidner, D.E. and Kayworth, T. (2006), “A review of culture in information systems research:
toward a theory of information technology culture conflict”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 357-399.
Leonardi, P.M. and Meyer, S.R. (2015), “Social media as social lubricant: how ambient awareness eases
992 knowledge transfer”, American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 10-34.
Levin, D.Z. and Cross, R. (2004), “The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in
effective knowledge transfer”, Management Science, Vol. 50 No. 11, pp. 1477-1490.
Li, L., Barner-Rasmussen, W. and Björkman, I. (2007), “What difference does the location make? A
social capital perspective on transfer of knowledge from multinational corporation subsidiaries
located in China and Finland”, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 233-249.
Li, J.H., Chang, X.R., Lin, L. and Ma, L.Y. (2014), “Meta-analytic comparison on the influencing factors
of knowledge transfer in different cultural contexts”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 278-306.
Liao, L.F. (2008), “Knowledge-sharing in R&D departments: a social power and social exchange theory
perspective”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 10,
pp. 1881-1895.
Liao, S.H., Chen, C.C., Hu, D.C., Chung, Y.C.C. and Yang, M.J. (2017), “Developing a sustainable
competitive advantage: absorptive capacity, knowledge transfer and organizational learning”,
The Journal of Technology Transfer, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 1431-1450.
Liebowitz, J., Ayyavoo, N., Nguyen, H., Carran, D. and Simien, J. (2007), “Cross-generational knowledge
flows in edge organizations”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 107 No. 8,
pp. 1123-1153.
Lin, C., Tan, B. and Chang, S. (2008), “An exploratory model of knowledge flow barriers within
healthcare organizations”, Information and Management, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 331-339.
Loebbecke, C., Fenema, P.C. and Powell, P. (2016), “Managing inter-organizational knowledge sharing”,
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 4-14.
McDermott, R. and O’Dell, C. (2001), “Overcoming cultural barriers to sharing knowledge”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 76-85.
Malhotra, A. and Majchrzak, A. (2004), “Enabling knowledge creation in far-flung teams: best practices
for IT support and knowledge sharing”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 4,
pp. 75-88.
Massaro, M., Handley, K., Bagnoli, C. and Dumay, J. (2016), “Knowledge management in small and
medium enterprises: a structured literature review”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20
No. 2, pp. 258-291.
Miller, K., McAdam, R., Moffett, S., Alexander, A. and Puthusserry, P. (2016), “Knowledge transfer in
university quadruple helix ecosystems: an absorptive capacity perspective”, R&D Management,
Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 383-399.
Milne, P. (2007), “Motivation, incentives and organisational culture”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 28-38.
Minbaeva, D.B. (2007), “Knowledge transfer in multinational corporations”, Management International
Review, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 567-593.
Minbaeva, D.B., Pedersen, T., Björkman, I. and Fey, C.F. (2014), “MNC knowledge transfer, subsidiary
absorptive capacity, and HRM”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 45 No. 1,
pp. 52-62.
Mueller, J. (2014), “A specific knowledge culture: cultural antecedents for knowledge sharing between
project teams”, European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 190-202.
Murray, S.R. and Peyrefitte, J. (2007), “Knowledge type and communication media choice in the Antecedents of
knowledge transfer process”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 111-133.
knowledge
Muthusamy, S.K. and White, M. (2005), “Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: a
social exchange view”, Organization Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 415-441.
transfer
Nakauchi, M., Washburn, M. and Klein, K. (2017), “Differences between inter-and intra-group dynamics
in knowledge transfer processes”, Management Decision, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 766-782.
Nylund, P.A. and Raelin, J.D. (2015), “When feelings obscure reason: the impact of leaders’ explicit and 993
emotional knowledge transfer on shareholder reactions”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 532-542.
Oddou, G., Osland, J.S. and Blakeney, R.N. (2009), “Repatriating knowledge: variables
influencing the “transfer” process”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 40 No. 2,
pp. 181-199.
Park, J.Y. and Im, K. (2007), “The role of IT human capability in knowledge transfer process under IT
outsourcing situations”, AMCIS 2007 Proceedings of the Americas Conference on Information
Systems (AMCIS), AIS Electronic Library (AISeL), Keystone, CO, p. 216.
Park, C., Vertinsky, I. and Becerra, M. (2015), “Transfers of tacit vs. explicit knowledge and
performance in international joint ventures: the role of age”, International Business Review,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 89-101.
Paulin, D. and Suneson, K. (2012), “Knowledge transfer, knowledge sharing and knowledge barriers –
three blurry terms in KM”, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 81-91.
Pee, L.G., Kankanhalli, A. and Thiagarajan, R. (2007), “Knowledge transfer between external IT
consultants and business professionals in IS development-impact of social interdependence”,
PACIS 2007 Proceedings, p. 30.
Peltokorpi, V. and Yamao, S. (2017), “Corporate language proficiency in reverse knowledge transfer: a
moderated mediation model of shared vision and communication frequency”, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 404-416.
Pérez-Nordtvedt, L., Kedia, B.L., Datta, D.K. and Rasheed, A.A. (2008), “Effectiveness and efficiency of
cross-border knowledge transfer: an empirical examination”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 714-744.
Reagans, R. and McEvily, B. (2003), “Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion
and range”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 240-267.
Riege, A. (2005), “Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider”, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 18-35.
Riege, A. (2007), “Actions to overcome knowledge transfer barriers in MNCs”, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 48-67.
Riege, A. and Zulpo, M. (2007), “Knowledge transfer process cycle: between factory floor and Middle
management”, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 293-314.
Ringberg, T. and Reihlen, M. (2008), “Towards a socio-cognitive approach to knowledge transfer”,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 912-935.
Riusala, K. and Smale, A. (2007), “Predicting stickiness factors in the international transfer of
knowledge through expatriates”, International Studies of Management and Organization,
Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 16-43.
Santhanam, R., Seligman, L. and Kang, D. (2007), “Postimplementation knowledge transfers to users
and information technology professionals”, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 171-199.
Sharratt, M. and Usoro, A. (2003), “Understanding knowledge-sharing in online communities of
practice”, Electronic Journal on Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 187-196.
EBR Simonin, B.L. (1999), “Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 595-623.
31,6
Slaughter, S.A. and Kirsch, L.J. (2006), “The effectiveness of knowledge transfer portfolios in
software process improvement: a field study”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 301-320.
Song, J. (2014), “Subsidiary absorptive capacity and knowledge transfer within multinational
994 corporations”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 73-84.
Swanson, E.B. and Ramiller, N.C. (1993), “Information systems research thematics: Submissions to a
new journal, 1987-1992”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 299-330.
Szulanski, G. (1996), “Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within
the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. S2, pp. 27-43.
Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R. and Jensen, R.J. (2004), “When and how trustworthiness matters: knowledge
transfer and the moderating effect of causal ambiguity”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 5,
pp. 600-613.
Szulanski, G., Ringov, D. and Jensen, R.J. (2016), “Overcoming stickiness: how the timing of
knowledge transfer methods affects transfer difficulty”, Organization Science, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 304-322.
Tangaraja, G., Rasdi, R.M., Abu Samah, B. and Ismail, M. (2016), “Knowledge sharing is knowledge
transfer: a misconception in the literature”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 653-670.
Teo, T.S. and Bhattacherjee, A. (2014), “Knowledge transfer and utilization in IT outsourcing
partnerships: a preliminary model of antecedents and outcomes”, Information and Management,
Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 177-186.
Tuan, L.T. (2012), “Behind knowledge transfer”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 459-478.
Vaghefi, I., Lapointe, L. and Shahbaznezhad, H. (2018), “A multilevel process view of organizational
knowledge transfer: enablers versus barriers”, Journal of Management Analytics, Vol. 5 No. 1,
pp. 1-17.
Van den Hooff, B. and Huysman, M. (2009), “Managing knowledge sharing: emergent and engineering
approaches”, Information and Management, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J.J. and Lyles, M.A. (2008), “Inter-and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: a
meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 830-853.
Voelpel, S.C. and Han, Z. (2005), “Managing knowledge sharing in China: the case of Siemens Sharenet”,
Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 51-63.
Watson, S. and Hewett, K. (2006), “A multi-theoretical model of knowledge transfer in organizations:
determinants of knowledge contribution and kowledge reuse”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 141-173.
Wehn, U. and Montalvo, C. (2018), “Knowledge transfer dynamics and innovation: behaviour,
interactions and aggregated outcomes”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 171, pp. S56-S68.
Wei, Y. and Miraglia, S. (2017), “Organizational culture and knowledge transfer in project-based
organizations: theoretical insights from a Chinese construction firm”, International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 571-585.
Whittle, A. and Spicer, A. (2008), “Is actor network theory critique?”, Organization Studies, Vol. 29
No. 4, pp. 611-629.
Xu, P. and Yao, Y. (2006), “Knowledge transfer in system development offshore outsourcing projects”,
AMCIS 2006 Proceedings, p. 379.
Xu, Q. and Ma, Q. (2008), “Determinants of ERP implementation knowledge transfer”, Information and
Management, Vol. 45 No. 8, pp. 528-539.
Yeoh, P.L. (2009), “Realized and potential absorptive capacity: understanding their antecedents and Antecedents of
performance in the sourcing context”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 21-36. knowledge
Yih-Tong Sun, P. and Scott, J.L. (2005), “An investigation of barriers to knowledge transfer”, Journal of transfer
Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 75-90.
Yu, Y., Dong, X., Zuo, M. and Xu, W. (2012), “Constitutive roles of external and internal information
systems for effective interorganizational knowledge transfer: a dyadic approach”, Proceeding of
PACIS 2012, p. 45. 995
Zaidman, N. and Brock, D.M. (2009), “Knowledge transfer within multinationals and their foreign
subsidiaries: a culture-context approach”, Group and Organization Management, Vol. 34 No. 3,
pp. 297-329.
Zárraga-Oberty, C. and De Saá-Pérez, P. (2006), “Work teams to favor knowledge management: towards
communities of practice”, European Business Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 60-76.
Zhang, Y. (2006), “Knowledge sourcing: a channel preference perspective”, Proceeding of AMCIS 2006,
pp. 4571-4577.
Zhao, D., Zuo, M. and Deng, X.N. (2015), “Examining the factors influencing cross-project knowledge
transfer: an empirical study of IT services firms in China”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 325-340.

Corresponding author
Mona Rashidirad can be contacted at: M.Rashidirad@sussex.ac.uk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com